Thought I'd go ahead and start this thread as a watch. The decision should come down tomorrow at 10 eastern.

Speculation among bloggers is that it is going to come down favorably on the gun-rights side. Justice Scalia is the only justice not to write a majority opinion this session, and it is thought the majority opinion will be handed to him to write.

Patrick has ambitions to be the first blogger to post the result. Betcha he will.

Smart money on recognizing the right to bear arms as an individual right. Less clear -- whether court will address level of scrutiny required. (Possible result: "we need not address the level of scrutiny required, as the D.C. total gun ban would not survive any level of scrutiny.") Almost certainly no ruling on whether right is incorporated (meaning binding on the states), but probable hints.

Patrick has ambitions to be the first blogger to post the result. Betcha he will.

Smart money on recognizing the right to bear arms as an individual right. Less clear -- whether court will address level of scrutiny required. (Possible result: "we need not address the level of scrutiny required, as the D.C. total gun ban would not survive any level of scrutiny.") Almost certainly no ruling on whether right is incorporated (meaning binding on the states), but probable hints.

In my totally baseless opinion founded merely on being a student of common sense, this seems to be the most sensible outcome.

This could arguably be the biggest Supreme Court ruling since Roe v Wade.

At first glance, you sound nuts in saying that. On second thought - I think you are really on to something. However, I think the importance is based upon which way they side. If they go along with popular opinion on this forum and defend the 2nd amendment, it won't be that big of a deal compared to if they go the other way... Then we'd have a serious problem. I have a lot of words if they go against the way I think they'll go, hopefully I can save the wind to cool my coffee.

This could arguably be the biggest Supreme Court ruling since Roe v Wade.

At first glance, you sound nuts in saying that. On second thought - I think you are really on to something. However, I think the importance is based upon which way they side. If they go along with popular opinion on this forum and defend the 2nd amendment, it won't be that big of a deal compared to if they go the other way... Then we'd have a serious problem. I have a lot of words if they go against the way I think they'll go, hopefully I can save the wind to cool my coffee.

Agreed. But I guess what I was saying is that the implications of this case on both sides is as large in my opinion. If it goes against gun owners -- it will be an earth shaking decision that will rattle the foundations of the country. If it goes in favor of gun owners -- it will be but a whisper, but to some of gun control supporters most ardent warriors it will represent a giant hurdle to some of that faction's end goals (gun bans on a large scale like in Austrailia). Please note I'm not saying that all supporters of gun control support those drastic measures, but a faction does... and this has the potential to effectively end their aspirations of gun bans unless the Constitution is changed.

This could arguably be the biggest Supreme Court ruling since Roe v Wade.

At first glance, you sound nuts in saying that. On second thought - I think you are really on to something. However, I think the importance is based upon which way they side. If they go along with popular opinion on this forum and defend the 2nd amendment, it won't be that big of a deal compared to if they go the other way... Then we'd have a serious problem. I have a lot of words if they go against the way I think they'll go, hopefully I can save the wind to cool my coffee.

Agreed. But I guess what I was saying is that the implications of this case on both sides is as large in my opinion. If it goes against gun owners -- it will be an earth shaking decision that will rattle the foundations of the country. If it goes in favor of gun owners -- it will be but a whisper, but to some of gun control supporters most ardent warriors it will represent a giant hurdle to some of that faction's end goals (gun bans on a large scale like in Austrailia). Please note I'm not saying that all supporters of gun control support those drastic measures, but a faction does... and this has the potential to effectively end their aspirations of gun bans unless the Constitution is changed.

The more I think about it (and I really should wait to see what happens), if the court rules against gun owners rights - I think it sets scary precident for getting into other places in our constitution. This is not a slippery slope we're talking here - we're talking about a flat out spit in the face of the foundations of this nation, our freedom and the ability of the american citizen to make the government be afraid (so they actually have to do things for the nation other than be corrupt). Our government has pacified our nation ENOUGH the last 8 years (dang, it's been going on a lot longer - but it's escalated to incredible heights)... But a non-supporting of the 2nd amendment decision I think would open the door to regulation against our country's framework and get into things that have nothing to do with gun ownership rights. I know that's a tin foil hat over-reaction, but I've seen crap happen the past 8 years that make me wonder what the hell is happening to the US.

I'm with you on your point, for sure. This decision could indeed lock down the 2nd Amendment without a dramatic change in our nation's collective beliefs. I guess it is more important than I intially thought if they rule in favor of the 2nd. There's a TON of 2nd Amendment challenges in Nevada (damn E Coast and Cali nancys ruining the state) - and this might actually impact some of the challenges and laws out here, which I think would be fantastic.

Well here's something positive for once! I don't own a gun but I believe it is our fundamental right to bear arms if we so choose. Looks like this country steps back from the abyss for at least a couple of days.

I'm interested in seeing the dissenting opinion. I saw on CNN that it was a 5-4 decision. I'm surprised it was that close.

I wish we could just assume that they did it to make the decision more exciting and close, but I suppose that would be wishful thinking. Sometimes I wonder if the Government isn't just going to reinterpret and rewrite our Constitution one day without the people's consent or input. A lot of them sure seem to be questioning major parts of it.

Yeah, thanks Fed for the link. Interesting read (never read one of these before). I don't see much 'reaching' at all in the decision - it's all very logical and makes a lot of sense.

What I don't understand, as I'm ignorant, is other people's perception of the 2nd Amendment. Even when I was very anti-gun and ignorant on the issue, my perception right now is very much the same on what the Amendment means.

What I'm struggling with is the debate on the 2nd Amendment refering to the individual or 'the militia'. When I was anti-gun, it always read very much in favor of the individual to me - I just didn't agree with the Amendment. Even evidence thrown out by Breyer gives little insight into that thought and brings up laws that I have no idea if they're even still around and have become 'blue laws'. Certainly, a lot of his arguments make sense and I think was smart bringing up colonial law (for the impact of thought at the time), but what happened to those regulations? That, to me, is important.

At any rate - Breyer's dissenting opinion is pretty solid, but it seems he didn't really want to touch the issue to begin with. It is an interesting debate on both sides, but I see why the decision was closer right now, although, I do not agree with it being so close.

Since overall I agreed with the decision of the court, I wanted to check out the dissenting opinions first. I don't have time to read the whole thing, but so far I have worked through about the first 17 pages of Stevens dissenting opinion, and I'm surprised. So far he has focused on the interpretation of the text of the amendment, and why he feels it most likely was meant for the militia and not individuals.

There are two good points he makes. The first is the implied use of the firearms. Obviously they weren't meant to commit a crime, which leaves hunting, shooting for sport, defense, and fighting in an army (or militia or whatever). The text of the amendment specifically mentions fighting in the militia, but none of the other options. Why would the "Framers" leave them out if they were implied? Stevens points to the Declaration of Rights for Pennsylvania and Vermont, which were written around the time of the 2nd Amendment, both of which specifically mention “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence ofthemselves and the state”. Why would the authors of the amendment leave it out when contemporary text specifically kept it in?

The other good point he makes is interpreting "to keep and bear arms". He claims that the phrase at the time the amendment was written, referred to military use. "To Keep" meant that members of the militia were allowed to store their weapons at home, and "bear arms" implied the military use.

So far it has been an interesting read. I still agree that people should be allowed to own guns, but I can understand why the decision was so close.

Logged

Tune in to hear me spout nonsense about Fantasy Football every Thursday evening at 6:08.

I bought some wine to celebrate tonight. It was indeed a stressful night and morning for me.

I'm scared and shocked at how close this was....

Why?

I can't speak for you, but I can't promise that I'd actually go along with restrictive gun laws of the type DC was trying to enforce.

Besides, this is a case specific to a federal district, which is why I don't expect the challenges already being brought against various other cities will succeed.

True, but I want my children when they get to be adults to be able to go into a store and legally purcahse a firearm. I also want them to be able to use them to protect their homes without being thrown in jail.

And we'll see about how far reaching this is. The opinion was over 100 pages, and it's still being dissected.

I bought some wine to celebrate tonight. It was indeed a stressful night and morning for me.

I'm scared and shocked at how close this was....

Why?

I can't speak for you, but I can't promise that I'd actually go along with restrictive gun laws of the type DC was trying to enforce.

Besides, this is a case specific to a federal district, which is why I don't expect the challenges already being brought against various other cities will succeed.

The thing is that the Supreme Court of the United States has decreed the U.S. Constitution to say that individuals have a right to bear arms. Which judge do you think is going to look at the decision and say that their local law is going to supercede this precedent? Every city that's put a blanket "no" to guns is going to have its citizens taking them to federal court saying that their Constitutionally guaranteed right to own a gun is being infringed.

The thing is that the Supreme Court of the United States has decreed the U.S. Constitution to say that individuals have a right to bear arms. Which judge do you think is going to look at the decision and say that their local law is going to supercede this precedent? Every city that's put a blanket "no" to guns is going to have its citizens taking them to federal court saying that their Constitutionally guaranteed right to own a gun is being infringed.

Sure, but the Constitution is all about "Congress shall make no law" which is clearly about what the federal government can do. As a federal district, DC is not Chicago or New York or LA. While the 14th Amendment attempted to make the rights declared in the Constitution immune from state action, the Supreme Court has made it clear that states do have some overriding authority.

This was a specific case regarding a specific situation in a federal district. Challenges to restrictive gun laws in non-federal districts will have to be determined seperately, but it would not surprise me if this court allows states a lot of leeway on this issue.

Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.Syndey: That's alright. I have both.

The thing is that the Supreme Court of the United States has decreed the U.S. Constitution to say that individuals have a right to bear arms. Which judge do you think is going to look at the decision and say that their local law is going to supercede this precedent? Every city that's put a blanket "no" to guns is going to have its citizens taking them to federal court saying that their Constitutionally guaranteed right to own a gun is being infringed.

Sure, but the Constitution is all about "Congress shall make no law" which is clearly about what the federal government can do. As a federal district, DC is not Chicago or New York or LA. While the 14th Amendment attempted to make the rights declared in the Constitution immune from state action, the Supreme Court has made it clear that states do have some overriding authority.

This was a specific case regarding a specific situation in a federal district. Challenges to restrictive gun laws in non-federal districts will have to be determined seperately, but it would not surprise me if this court allows states a lot of leeway on this issue.

This both troubles me and also cheers me. On one hand you have individual rights in the 2nd Amendment, and on the other hand -- if you are reading into this correctly -- you have State's rights.

I am a supporter of both.

Btw -- My theory on what would have happened if the court had gone the other way: you would have seen rural states throughout the Union passing constitutional amendments to the State Constitutions that drafted every citizen of each state over a certain age into a 'state militia' for the sole purpose of preserving the right.

The thing is that the Supreme Court of the United States has decreed the U.S. Constitution to say that individuals have a right to bear arms. Which judge do you think is going to look at the decision and say that their local law is going to supercede this precedent? Every city that's put a blanket "no" to guns is going to have its citizens taking them to federal court saying that their Constitutionally guaranteed right to own a gun is being infringed.

Sure, but the Constitution is all about "Congress shall make no law" which is clearly about what the federal government can do. As a federal district, DC is not Chicago or New York or LA. While the 14th Amendment attempted to make the rights declared in the Constitution immune from state action, the Supreme Court has made it clear that states do have some overriding authority.

This was a specific case regarding a specific situation in a federal district. Challenges to restrictive gun laws in non-federal districts will have to be determined seperately, but it would not surprise me if this court allows states a lot of leeway on this issue.

This both troubles me and also cheers me. On one hand you have individual rights in the 2nd Amendment, and on the other hand -- if you are reading into this correctly -- you have State's rights.

I am a supporter of both.

Btw -- My theory on what would have happened if the court had gone the other way: you would have seen rural states throughout the Union passing constitutional amendments to the State Constitutions that drafted every citizen of each state over a certain age into a 'state militia' for the sole purpose of preserving the right.

Exactly, which opens up a whole different can of worms, like my need as a member of the state militia to own military weapons like unrestricted assault rifles.

What bothered me the most about the "it only means militia" argument was that the same people then argued that we're such a strong country we didn't need a big militia anyway (or that the National Guard was our "militia") and that therefore complete gun restrictions were necessary and justified.

Edit: BTW, I saw the attorney general for DC on TV tonight and it sounds like they are going to try and pass a new version of their law that allows handgun ownership, but try and make semi-automatics illegal while revolvers would presumably be legal. Not sure what the point is, but I don't think it's going to work.

« Last Edit: June 27, 2008, 03:39:41 AM by Sarkus »

Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.Syndey: That's alright. I have both.

Very interesting indeed.....as a new gun owner I am pleased that this happened. I have always been for the right to purchase a gun....Personally, I purchased mine for self defense (I live in a state that conceal and carry is legal with the proper training) and target shooting. However, my gun is illegal in places like California because it would be classified as an assault weapon by their standards (due to extra capasity mags 16+1 in the chamber).

I think what it comes down to is responsible ownership. I think gun owners should be required to pass a reasonable amount of tests or certifications in order to own and/or carry. IE. Hunter safety courses required for the purchase of guns as well as a criminal background investigations and a waiting period--hell I didn't own a gun and my parents made me take the hunters ed. class to go skeet shooting with a friend.

oh and it wouldn't be a gun thread without posting a pic of mine (well one from online)